Why no help in RKBA fight?

Read on the Keep and Bear Arms website. Assuming that this guy wants help, why are NRA, GOA etc apparently not even lending moral support to this guy. Sounds like a right fight to me.http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
f=/c/a/2002/12/23/MN210896.DTL

Just before it became illegal to own military-style assault weapons in California about three years ago, Gary Gorski went shopping. The suburban Sacramento lawyer already had one high-powered rifle sitting in his home safe, but he rushed out to buy seven more. Just on principle.

He consulted gun advocates -- what were they going to do about this ban, what advice did they have? -- but no one pledged support. So, by himself, he hunkered down in his small office and cranked out a lawsuit to overturn the assault weapons ban.

"No one is backing me on this," Gorski said the other day, about a week after the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled against him.

But that didn't stop him. While many people assume this latest fight against gun control in California is being waged by the National Rifle Association or state gun owner groups, the real contestant is Gorski, a virtual unknown, who filed the challenge on behalf of nine plaintiffs -- most of them rugby buddies. Variously described as a "loose cannon" and a dogged worker "with the heart of a champion," Gorski, 40, is definitely one thing -- persistent.

A solo practitioner who usually takes employment cases, has no secretary and copies and collates his own briefs at Kinko's, Gorski has filed a petition for a rehearing before a larger panel of judges and vows if that fails to take his arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court. By himself, if necessary.

Not even the state gun lobby, gun owners' associations or the NRA are stepping in to help him fight what many feel is a futile attempt to challenge the ban on Second Amendment grounds before the federal court in San Francisco. One gun lobbyist calls some of the vehement language in Gorski's appeals court brief "inflammatory and unwise." That would be the part where he invokes the example of Nazi Germany.

So now Gorski is hunkering down again, this time in a cost-cutting home office. He calls it the War Room: a spare bedroom equipped with his Dell computer, a phone, a few law books and a cherished autographed picture of his hero, pro wrestler-turned-politician Jesse Ventura, Minnesota's governor.

More than one person has pointed out the resemblance: similar hairdo, or lack of it, similar buffed muscles and, Gorski's favorite, similar independent streak. If the gun groups won't support him, so be it, he said.

"I'm the kind of person to take the horse by the reins and go with it," said Gorski, at home recently wearing his usual work gear, a sweatshirt and jeans -- he only wears suits when he goes to court. Around him, there was the usual whirlwind of activity.

Several of his rugby friends -- big guys, with even bigger shoulders -- had dropped by and were standing around the kitchen. His German shepherd, Zeus, was running around with a toy soccer ball. His wife of five years, Caroline, was chopping onions.

'GARY'S WORLD'
"Welcome to Gary's world," she said. "It's Grand Central here. People hang out here because they want to be around Gary."

"Gorby," as his rugby friends call him, grew up in Delaware, where his father was an electrician and his mother was a keypunch operator on an assembly line making pipes. His father never had guns at home, but didn't mind his son having one, said Gorski, who recalls bringing a gun to his Catholic school so he could go goose hunting later that day.

"The principal says, 'Is that loaded?' " Gorski said. "I told him no and he said, 'Keep it in your locker.' "

Asked about horrific school shootings, such as Columbine, and the fact that students brought guns on campus he said he blames "rich parents" for failing to control and care for their kids.

What about gun accidents? Like many advocates of the right to own guns, he believes that responsible ownership is the answer. He keeps his own guns in a safe. When a reporter visited him, Gorski showed off the guns, but made a point of not letting anyone see where the gun safe is.

After high school in Delaware, where by his own description he "was not a stellar student," Gorski enlisted in the Army in 1980, serving in an air cavalry unit in the United States and in Europe. Later, determined to get the college education his parents never had, he went to the University of Delaware and then, after hitchhiking west, to Sacramento State University. He studied law at Delaware Law School and supported himself working as a bouncer at a strip club.

After passing the bar, he briefly did insurance company defense work, but found that didn't suit him. So he moved to Sacramento and went into solo practice in 1994.

THE LOUT IN THE BAR
Caroline Gorski, a software saleswoman, recalls meeting him for the first time when he bumped into and then spilled his drink on her in a bar. She expected an apology. What she got, instead, was, "That's the breaks, kid."

Fortunately, she didn't recognize him as the lout in the bar when the two met again six months later. Soon they were engaged and married.

In her entire life, Caroline Gorski said, she's shot a gun only once -- during a brief lesson from her husband. But it's not something she wants to repeat, and her husband agrees. If people broke into their house, she would be safer giving them "a tongue lashing," he said.

"Personally, I don't agree that we have all these guns," she said. "But I agree with the principle."

And the principle is what it's about, Gary Gorski said. He is the kind of lawyer who spent 100 hours getting the last $300 check owed to a client from the government. Seeing himself as the brash, scrappy lawyer who relishes battling the powerful Harvard-trained government lawyers who sit at the other table, Gorski usually handles cases of employees who claim they were fired unjustly or faced retaliation from bosses. He has represented deputy U.S. marshals in a suit against supervisors and a homeless woman suing police for brutality.

In the gun control case, he said, he's not fighting for the right to own assault weapons because he loves them. He's fighting because he loves his constitutional rights and is wary of government power. He believes, like many gun advocates, that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to bear arms. Without that, he said, citizens have no recourse against the possibility of government tyranny.

"I don't fear anyone," he said, "but my government."

The appeals court judges, in a 3-0 decision, upheld the legality of amendments adopted in 1999 to an earlier ban. The amendments -- adopted in response to a proliferation of shootings involving military-style assault weapons -- outlawed 75 high-powered weapons with rapid-fire capabilities.

The judges disagreed that the Second Amendment applies to individual rights to own guns, but instead was adopted to ensure effective state militias could be maintained. But the fact that the court saw fit to issue a lengthy analysis of the case was noteworthy in itself, said Tim Rieger, a deputy attorney general who argued against Gorski. The court's ruling contradicts one made by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which could prompt the highest court to take up the matter, he said.

"To have gotten the analysis, I would say he certainly has gotten the opportunity and justification to bring it to the U.S. Supreme Court," Rieger said. "I don't know if they'll hear it."

'PASSIONATE' LEGAL BRIEF
Rieger, used to reading dry legal briefs, said he found Gorski's "unusual" and "passionate." In the brief, Gorski uses the argument often employed by opponents of gun control that by taking guns away from citizens, Germany's Nazi regime ensured that firearms ultimately went only to such groups as the Nazi Waffen-SS and Hitler Youth.

Chuck Michel, a spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association and an NRA lawyer, said he sympathized with Gorski's impatience, but said his approach was "not the way to go about correcting the problem." Michel has filed a lawsuit in Fresno Superior Court challenging the weapons ban on the basis of its ambiguity. Gorski, he said, is a "well-intentioned loose cannon."

Gorski shrugs off such criticism. He's approaching the case the same way he does rugby -- to win.

"I never underestimate my friend Gary Gorski," said Marcus Davis, one of the rugby-playing plaintiffs, who is a bank vice president living near Roseville (Placer County). "He has the heart of a champion. . . . He does everything he does 110 percent."

Davis said he owns a few deer rifles and shotguns but has no assault weapons himself. Most of the other plaintiffs also own guns, but some don't, Gorski said. They come from all political backgrounds, but most have a libertarian bent and are not part of a gun club. Gorski himself said he no longer hunts. He doesn't have time, but is saving his guns as props for his legal case and for future generations.

These days, he is taking on other cases to help pay the bills, sharing some of them with Dan Karalash, a criminal defense lawyer who helped work on the assault weapons brief. But mostly, he is focused on his mission -- getting his case heard.

"There is no gray area with Gary," said his wife, Caroline. "People think he's a Neanderthal or they love him."

I'm a life member of NRA. it's the best game in town. BUT, they don't care so much about our Right as they do continuing the fight. The fight makes them money. It garners them publicity. If an incident isn't high profile enough, forget it. if an incident stands too much of a chance of actually making a difference, forget it.

Sorry, the URL (cut and pasted exactly) does not appear to take you to the article, so I am posting it below- I hope I'm allowed to do that.

Click to expand...

It's always easier to get forgiveness than permission.

Gorby is cast in the mold of Jesse Ventura, and I'll bet he's not about to kowtow to the NRA, GOA, etc. If they want to support him without strings attached, they can, and IMO, should.

For now, he seems to be fighting the good fight very well, and he (and we) may be better off with him being completely independent of those organizations which are regularly villified by our common adversaries.

Gorby has the advantage of the media NOT being able to say this about him: "Gorski is supported by the evil [NRA] [GOA] [Amalgamated Bambi Killers] [etc.]." Much power to him, and if he needs help, I hope it's instantly forthcoming with NO strings attached.

Good for Gorski, I hope he wins the RKBA lotto! As for support from NRA, it would be nice, but on the other side of the coin, as has already been said here at least the media can not berate him for being supported by NRA, GOA, etc.

Financial support from the NRA seems to be rather hard to get in California issues before the courts. Please! Don't bash me on this, I am aware there has been some NRA financial support for California cases in the past, but my point is not nearly enough support has been forthcoming from NRA.

I recently wrote an e-mail to NRA regarding the lack of NRA financial support for RKBA issues in California. The reply e-mail from NRA stated that NRA had indeed supported legal issues before the California courts, to the tune of more than five hundred thousand dollars during the past ten years.

Wow! a whole five hundred thousand dollars in ten years! Look at that number and then times it by the number of states and one can see NRA needs to utilize more dollars for grassroots issues and less dollars in the pocket of politicians for inside the beltway political favors and lobby efforts. Just my opinion, no I will not post a copy of the e-mail message here. Write your own letter and get your own e-mail reply!

I am an NRA member, and will remain so, but I've come to believe that the NRA leadership is not interested in winning the KBA fight.

1. They're rich old guys who'll keep their prized "sporting guns" until the last dog dies. They have enough privilege and influence to be the last on the confiscation list. Not like they're a big "insurrection threat" or anything.

2. If they "win", then the game is over and who needs them? In a political sense anyway. They'll have to go back to raising money for "safety classes".

3. With the number of "shall issue" carry states, the NRA makes money from instructor certifications and training. Most of the carry states require completion of a NRA class or a class taught by an NRA instructor. Some states have state certified instructors, but you often have to be NRA certified to qualify for state certification.

Not even the state gun lobby, gun owners' associations or the NRA are stepping in to help him fight what many feel is a futile attempt to challenge the ban on Second Amendment grounds before the federal court in San Francisco. One gun lobbyist calls some of the vehement language in Gorski's appeals court brief "inflammatory and unwise." That would be the part where he invokes the example of Nazi Germany.

Yes, the guy sounds like he is perfectly willing to go it alone, and I commend him for that. But if NRA and "gun owner's associations" are correctly portrayed it still smells of cowardice or disinterest to me.

Think I'll email NRA, JPFO, GOA etc of which I am a member and ask for their opinion on this- and really begin to pick and choose who my hard earned cash is sent to.

Since KSF won't answer, El Tejon is a very large ranch bordering the Southern end of the San Joaquin Valley in California. Anyone who has gone from Los Angeles to Bakersfield has passed through it. Started in 1838. One of the largest land holdings still out there. El Tejon Ranch is a publically traded company.

Gary Gorski put out a press release roasting Chuck Michel, the NRA and other gun groups in general for their lack of help. The moment he did that, he guaranteed he wouldn't get NRA-connected help, probably forever. He has since said that Chuck disparaged his efforts first. Might be true, I dunno.

What I do know is that such squabbling was tactically stupid, and hurt Gary one hell of a lot more than it hurt anybody else.

Oleg has more political sense, which is why he named this joint like he did. Some of y'all might want to catch a clue and ease up on the NRA-bashing...

Good point on the 9th circuit being a poor venue for justice on gun rights, in my opinion justice! I agree with you on that.

I too noticed the wisdom of Oleg and the crew of the vehicle choosing a nice PC name, no ship of fools either!

As for bashing NRA, I don't see it that way. I look at it as trying for a course correction. I am still a member and still donate. My opinion is the NRA could be more in tune with the needs of the membership!

In regards to you, good job. Nearly all involved in RKBA see you as a most welcome, positive and effective advocate of gun rights.

It is recognized there are many personality types in the movement, there will be disagreements. In going toward the goal, I believe all will cooperate in moving the ball forward.

What seems to be happening here is that the NRA gets slammed from a dozen different directions. The "hardcore crowd" say they're not doing enough politically, the "upper crust hunting lodge set" think they're doing too much (witness the flak Wayne caught over the "Jack Booted Thugs" comments), and it's all basically a mess. The problem is, if they respond in kind to all attackers, it'll just "feed the flamewars" and you've got endless bickering of the sort to gladden Sarah Brady's black heart.

So instead, they just track who's a bickerer and flat don't deal with 'em. Gary Gorski will be shunned in NRA inner circles for a LONG time. Hell, I can't even hire him as my lawyer now in a CCW case without risking losing access to NRA people and resources which so far have been downright crucial.

Dammit. Am I mad at Gary? Some, but then again I doubt he understood the implications here. Am I mad at the NRA for being so sensitive? A little, but I mostly understand it. Am I mad at everybody who airs public bickering among allied over "open channels"?

Sigh. Yup. I consider such squabbling direct evidence of political inexperience at best, outright malice in at least some cases (not Gary).

Now, as to changing 'em: you'll have to prove you're worth listening to, to have a chance. Are you one of the dozen or so people who show up on a weekday morning to speak when some city council or county board of supes wants to pass some hair-brained grabber scheme? Do you get there a bit early so you can identify the lead NRA or other opposition folks and talk to 'em, discuss talking points? (That way, each five-minute public speaker nails a different topic versus repetition.) Do that for a while, volunteer some at the gun show recruitment tables, people notice you. You get invited to private mailing lists where the real news is. You start hearing about the REAL problems and issues...and that's all I'm gonna say on THAT.

Does this make sense? On the other hand, anybody can spew out the latest "FIX THE NRA NOW!" screed on a keyboard without knowing what the heck is really up, and then get all hissy when they're ignored. Gee, I wonder why?

I respect you, and you seem like a savvy guy. But, how can the NRA support something as blatant as "Project SAFE Neighborhoods"? It seems like they actually believe in the validity of 'gun laws' by supporting such a program. Has anyone told them about the 10th Amendment?

CATO has an outstanding policy analysis of SAFE Neighborhoods
located here:

Hey, I'm not "bashing" NRA, GOA, JPFO or any other gun rights group. It just seems that alot of times they seem to support only their own efforts in the fight, and ignore other efforts. If someone like Mr. Gorski is going to such trouble to protect his and my rights, then perhaps one of these gun groups could provide some aid.

As far as "proving" that I am worthy of being listened to- if I am worthy enough to be constantly hit up for money by these organizations to fight the fight, then I am worthy of voicing an opinion, and don't need to go any further. If I do choose to do so it is for my own reasons, although I like a little support too.

From a letter to me from the NRA dated 05/06/98:

"With all the chaos and mayhem the media and anti-gun legislatures have done to destroy our image, members like yourself have single handedly restored without all the fanfare.

On behalf of the NRA, I thank you for your efforts in support of NRA and defense of the Second Amendment. You have proven yourself a loyal friend of the American gun owner- and you should take great pride in knowing that.

With help from members like yourself, who are willing to take an active role in defense of the Second Amendment, we are confident that our battles can be won."

All I'm saying is it takes two to "bicker"- get over it and let's all pull together- anyone fighting the good fight is fighting on our side.

And I don't think being the biggest kid on the block has to make NRA the rightest, loudest , or best- just the biggest.

Do not forget that we are talking about politics and career politicians here. Any organization, be it NRA, GOA or your local RKBA organization will get now where by drawing a line in the sand and making ultimatums. They also do not have the money and/or resources to fight everyones fights for them, or help out, whatever the case may be.

Politics nowadays are all about compromise, and it is that way because of the politicians. Until we get decisive lawmakers in office, we will have to compromise on everything.

The only way laws will be repealed, say like the gun bans on full auto firearms will be for the officials that we elect to fully back them going away with no exceptions. Given the way that society is, I doubt that this will ever happen.

The best thing that we could hope for would be that we get rid of votes on bills cast by congress and have the people themselves vote on them. Get us closer to a true democracy instead of the republic we currently are under. But for that to happen we would need to have the congress critters change the Constitution(unlikely to the point of being impossible) or the people will have to start a revolution and make the changes that way(unlikely because I doubt a large enough percentage of people would be willing to put their lives on the line to enact change).

The Ninth Circuit had already ruled in a 1996 case that there was no individual right to bear arms. So I can see why NRA and GOA both declined to support it. Everybody knew what the ruling would be already. Ninth circuit was already in conflict with the Fifth, so they didn't gain anything there either.

However, I think that NRA and GOA should have supported it. The decision in this case was pure gold for them. The judge ruled "no guns for proles" essentially. The NRA and GOA could have easily donated $10,000 to this fight and then raised $100,000 off the decision simply by reprinting the decision verbatim in The American Rifleman and letting the duck hunters see this wasn't just about assault rifles.

I guess from their standpoint it is the best of both worlds since they didn't have to spend a $1 and will still be able to use the decision for fundraising and activism. Still, you would think these groups would realize that California is a big source of potential fundraising and the importance of supporting even losing cases in high-profile issues like this.

I amalso disappointed that with the press all abuzz about this, the NRA and GOA didn't take the opportunity to air their own views in the form of a press release. Free media coverage guys.

Anti-gun folks do not compromise- they want NO GUNS for anyone and I cannot see that we are not heading in that direction. One bit, one compromise, at a time.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, anti-gun folks compromise all the time. Do you think they wanted anyone to have assault rifles or to see the law sunset in 2004? They compromise for the same reason we do; because they won't even move a step down the road towards their ultimate goal without that compromise. The downside for them is that incrementalism can go in either direction.

They do compromise but they also have an ultimate goal, which they seem to be acheiving, if somewhat slowly.

When was the last gun law repealed? When did life for gunowners get easier? Compromise is bringing the antis closer to their goal- exactly what has compromise done for us, other than slow down the (it seems) inevitable?

The last federal gun law repealed was in 1998 when the section of the Brady law requiring a 5-day waiting period for handguns was replaced by a National Instant Check System for all guns.

Before that, the last time federal gun laws were repealed was in 1986.

When did life for gunowners get easier?

Click to expand...

Compare what it takes to carry a pistol legally in 1993 with what it takes today. Even in a strong pro-gun state like Texas, I could have never legally carried a pistol into a city like Dallas, concealed or open. Today, I carry one just because I want to and it is legal.

Compromise is bringing the antis closer to their goal- exactly what has compromise done for us, other than slow down the (it seems) inevitable?

Click to expand...

If compromise (which is not something you do when you have the power to refuse it) is not working for us, then how do you propose non-compromise will work?

We got here by incrementalism and while I realize we would all like to stop this car and instantly be back home, we are a little far down the road for that. We are going to have to get back home the same way we got here; by turning the car around and driving it there mile by mile.

Now compromise doesn't mean we'll give up our semi-automatics now if you promise not to try and ban the rest of the rifles for another five years. It also doesn't mean that just because I can't have all my rights back immediately, I spit on a chance to gain any of them back.

RKBA is stronger now than I have seen it in a long while and the key to keeping it strong is not to let our enemies divide us and to focus on our common goals rather than our differences.

Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.